My second point is that we should make a clear distinction between the counter-terrorism efforts of law enforcement agencies and armed conflict. We strongly condemn all acts of terrorism. As indicated in the Council's presidential statement (S/PRST/2010/19) of 27 September, terrorism continues to pose a serious threat to the enjoyment of human rights and to social and economic development. It also undermines global stability and prosperity.

Let me underline two issues. The first relates to dialogue with non-State armed groups. We understand the rationale of humanitarian access to civilians. However, Turkey believes that in doing so we should be extremely careful not to extend any sense of legitimacy to such organizations. Some terrorist groups in various parts of the world attempt to exploit such a humanitarian approach to gain international acceptance and recognition.

At the outset, I wish to thank today's briefers for their comprehensive presentations. Turkey welcomes the Council's increased attention to protection issues, including its adoption last November of resolution 1894 (2009), which was a significant step in this area. We also attach importance to recently adopted resolutions on women and peace and security and children and armed conflict.

As mentioned in the report (S/2010/579) of the Secretary-General, while in the course of the past 11 years a comprehensive framework has been established, the emphasis must now be on making progress in enhancing protection on the ground. We must therefore translate our legal commitments into actions. The real problem lies with implementation, rather than normsetting.

While the Council has discussed that important issue for decades, we appreciate it all the more at a time when serious violations affecting the Syrian citizens in the occupied Golan and the Palestinian populations in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip persist, owing to the barbaric Israeli aggression.

We simply do not know when the positions that are regularly expressed will be made real on the ground. Will the Security Council progress from debates and statements to actual implementation of its obligations and resolutions? That is the only question to which we must respond, for that is what is at stake when we talk about the defence and protection of civilians. It is an extremely important question.

Israel's aggressive behaviour means that this country is able to achieve what no other country or usurper in history has ever achieved. This aggressive behaviour violates the legal legacy and heritage of all humankind, straightforwardly without exception, and enjoys, despite all that, some sort of protection. The occupation of the Syrian Golan is similar to the picture that I have just drawn.

Israel has committed crimes for decades and has violated the most basic principles of international humanitarian law. It is not held accountable for its activities and its barbarous occupation and military and political leadership.

Despite this progress, Uruguay believes that there is a wide gap between the legal developments that have taken place in recent years with regard to the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, and the real situation of civilian populations affected by such conflicts, including in those places where the United Nations is represented by peacekeeping operations.

Amid its aggression in international waters against the Turkish freedom flotilla — which was bringing humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza, besieged for four years — the bombing of the United Nations headquarters and the death of civilians sheltered there, today Israel openly states its rejection of all humanitarian principles of international humanitarian law and conducts its feverish quest to try to reverse humanitarian